ozon_use_cabinet

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and idempotent, and the description adds the key behavioral detail that this changes the credential context for subsequent API calls. It does not contradict the annotations, and it sufficiently discloses the stateful side effect for such a small tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two focused sentences plus an Args block, with the core behavior first and no filler. Every sentence adds useful information and the structure is easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, state-switching tool with an existing output schema and idempotent annotation, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It explains the action, the parameter, and the effect on subsequent calls without needing extra detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining name as 'the cabinet to activate' and pointing to list_cabinets for obtaining valid values. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema field, though it stops short of specifying the exact expected format or identifier type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Switch the active cabinet' and explains the functional consequence: subsequent API calls use its credentials. This clearly distinguishes it from list/add/remove/set-key cabinet tools and from use_cabinet tools for other providers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly conveys the context for use: call this when you need to activate a different cabinet so later API calls authenticate with its credentials. It references {svc}_list_cabinets as the source of valid names, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.